What’s Next for Winnipeg Transit?

[Isaac Williams]

18 minutes ago, MMP15 said:

What are your thoughts of the plan? Any obvious needed reworks/tweaks pop out at you? What are your thoughts of posts like this? Do you appreciate me pointing out little details like this? Or are these long bulleted posts just an eyesore, as anyone can view the network plan for themselves?

I wish that the 62 (the Taylor Avenue route) could be extended to Fort Rouge Station via the same route as the current 95, but I may be biased since I live on Jubilee. I also find it curious that in the long term plan, there are 0 routes on Graham. Of course this might change, but I still find it odd. Of course, on Portage there are only 6 routes anyways, so that may be partly why none are on Graham. Overall, I do think the TMP is promising. But there will definitely be resistance from the public to keep the system the way it is, even if it is slower, because they don't want to learn the new system.

[SirAndrew710]

10 hours ago, MMP15 said:

What are your thoughts of the plan? Any obvious needed reworks/tweaks pop out at you?

I’m sad to see that they’re removing service from Whytewold Road, as I live a block and a half from there and so I ride the 83 to/from Unicity quite often, as it’s a quieter and geographically nicer alternative to the 21, but I’ll still have a one-seat ride to get there and back with the new plan. I’m also kind of excited to see that in addition to extending the BLUE west to Unicity, they’re gonna extend it east to St. Vital Centre in the long run. I’ve gone there for Christmas shopping a couple times due to the reliable transit access, and being able to make that trip without having to make a transfer downtown will be good.

[MMP15]

4 hours ago, SirAndrew710 said:

I’m also kind of excited to see that in addition to extending the BLUE west to Unicity, they’re gonna extend it east to St. Vital Centre in the long run.

The fact that councillors were questioning why the U of M - St Vital Bridge was a high priority in the TMP was a real head scratcher for me. They were thinking for the perspective of now the the SWT is built, other areas deserve the next transit infrastructure project. Transit planners were clearly thinking more logically, as their priorities reflect "what will positively impact the most people the soonest".

• Priority 1 - Downtown Infrastructure (St Mary's/Tache to Main Street/Higgins, RT Highline and Portage/Main to Portage/U of Winnipeg)
  • Downtown is the #1 commuter destination in Winnipeg and causes delays on bus routes city wide. By doing this project, the benefits will be felt across the majority of the primary network. This will benefit transit users across the city.
• Priority 2A - Main (Higgins to Inkster) and Louise Bridge
  • This benefits a lot of people North/East of Portage and Main. Makes sense. Personally it's an area of town that I avoid when possible due to safety concerns, and therefore the new infrastructure could add a bit of life to the area and make it safer/help people in poverty.
• Priority 2B
  • Jubilee Station Upgrade - Connects 7 routes together instead of having 2 stops with 3 and 4 routes each. For councillors that seemed to latch on to accessibility not being emphasized enough in the plan, they didn't seem to realize that this project's main intent is accessibility. With a pedestrian bridge over the rail line, the current 10-15 minute walk between Jubilee Station and Pembina/Stafford is drastically shortened. Also councillor Mayes was all concerned about cost overruns stemming in part from unforeseen riverbank stabilization. (Newsflash: a railway is not the same as a riverbank. Thanks for playing though.) This project would benefit a lot of people, ranging from Southdale to HSC to Salter to Taylor. The infrastructure may be in the south end of the city, but the benefits are far from limited to the south.
  • Blue Line Extension to St. Vital Centre (including new bridge over the Red River) - expensive but oh so necessary.
    • The U of M is the #2 commuter destination in Winnipeg.
    • A main cause of overcrowding on the route 75/M is people travelling from U of M to St Vital Centre. Lots of people use that parking lot as a park and ride, and as a transfer point to the 14/B and Dakota Routes. This bridge will improve the experience for all those users.
    • The 75/M cannot support 60' busses due to the layout of bus stops on Bishop Grandin. If this project is done, people travelling to St Vital Centre can hop on frequent 60' busses, which will free up capacity for people travelling on the 40 footers on the 75/M to Southdale, Kildonan Place and beyond (Transcona, etc).
    • The magnitude of the pressure that was on the 75/M in 2019 was one of the major reasons why route 47 was extended to the U of M. The problem is that it's slower to take the 47 to KP than the 75/M, so people probably would still gravitate to the 75. The bridge across the Red River addresses this and justifies 47 being dissolved into F (Pembina) and C (Rose Line).
    • This bridge allows for this new route P, which will benefit South St Vital, Royalwood, Island Lakes, Sage Creek and Plessis Road.
    • In case we forgot, the stadium traffic is still a bit of a mess with all it dumping out onto Pembina. This will alleviate congestion on Pembina, the main choke point to the Stadium for people travelling from anywhere in the city. Not to mention an AT bridge over the river for the stadium has been proposed for years, but not yet come to fruition.
• Priority 3 - Completing the Orange/Rose Lines. Makes sense that this is moved to last as these projects benefits are more limited to their immediate areas.

(Full disclosure: As you and Isaac said in your posts above, my post is also biased as I live in the area of the U of M bridge.)

[SirAndrew710]

1 hour ago, MMP15 said:

 

Downtown is the #1 commuter destination in Winnipeg and causes delays on bus routes city wide. By doing this project, the benefits will be felt across the majority of the primary network. This will benefit transit users across the city.

Yeah, the Portage corridor is a nightmare at rush hour for that reason. If you’re waiting for an express bus on WB Portage, as I’ve learned the hard way waiting for 22s and 25s at U of W, you’re gonna be there for a while due to the sheer amount of traffic.

1 hour ago, MMP15 said:

Personally it's an area of town that I avoid when possible due to safety concerns, and therefore the new infrastructure could add a bit of life to the area and make it safer/help people in poverty.

Same here. If ever I’m headed to KP from downtown, I like to take the 43 for that reason - it’s the only mainline route to KP that doesn’t go up Higgins, though when I have ridden the 44 or 47, there hasn’t been an issue.

1 hour ago, MMP15 said:

In case we forgot, the stadium traffic is still a bit of a mess with all it dumping out onto Pembina. This will alleviate congestion on Pembina, the main choke point to the Stadium for people travelling from anywhere in the city. Not to mention an AT bridge over the river for the stadium has been proposed for years, but not yet come to fruition.

Isn’t that bridge gonna be for buses (and likely AT) only?

[MMP15]

2 minutes ago, SirAndrew710 said:

Isn’t that bridge gonna be for buses (and likely AT) only?

Yes, but less busses on Pembina will help reduce congestion and benefit drivers on Pembina. (This is a secondary benefit but one nonetheless. I strongly believe there will be a positive "ripple effect". The primary benefit would be for busses/cyclists/pedestrians utilizing the bridge.)

[Viafreak]

On 4/22/2021 at 9:15 PM, SirAndrew710 said:

And yet its sister route (the 690) will remain.

I don't know if this is the reasoning but I believe that the whole purpose of the 690 (and likewise the 80/180 before it) is to serve the Fort Garry and Scurfield Industrial Parks (including MITT). Which explains why the route ends at Kenaston rather going to Whyte Ridge. The 691 (and likewise the 81/181 before it) provides peak service from Whyte Ridge to Seel Station for UofW students. With the 649 connecting Whyte Ridge and Chevier Station (connecting to Seel via BLUE), this might not be needed. It will be interesting to see how the runs look after the 691 is discontinued as most 691 buses turn into 690 buses at Seel Station. Having used both the 180 and 690, I have to say I like the 690 much better as it runs more often and doesn't have traffic on Pembina to deal with. Once in a while, traffic is backed up on Clarence due to a train but that is rare.

[Isaac Williams]

Perhaps after the 691 is discontinued, whenever that is, in the PM rush for example, maybe there could be buses that start at Seel Station as a 650, goes to Whyte Ridge, then becomes a 690, and returns to Seel Station. Or buses could simply deadhead back to Kenaston or Seel after completing their trip.

[wt_enthusiast_photos]

2 hours ago, Isaac Williams said:

Perhaps after the 691 is discontinued, whenever that is, in the PM rush for example, maybe there could be buses that start at Seel Station as a 650, goes to Whyte Ridge, then becomes a 690, and returns to Seel Station. Or buses could simply deadhead back to Kenaston or Seel after completing their trip.

I could see that happening. Or the 690 will run both ways 

[MMP15]

2 hours ago, Isaac Williams said:

Perhaps after the 691 is discontinued, whenever that is, in the PM rush for example, maybe there could be buses that start at Seel Station as a 650, goes to Whyte Ridge, then becomes a 690, and returns to Seel Station. Or buses could simply deadhead back to Kenaston or Seel after completing their trip.

I think it’s possible to interline the 690 with the 649.

For the AM rush inbound (to Pembina) 649s would run every 7 minutes.

Outbound busses would run 2 to 1 as 690 to 649. (For every three inbound 649s, 2 outbound 690s in a row and then 1 outbound 649.) This isn’t a novel idea as the southbound BLUE busses currently run 2 to 1 as St Norbert to U of M in rush hour.

That would lead to a frequency of every 7-14 minutes on the 690 and every 21 minutes on the 649.

I think this is more efficient then deadheading the 690 or running it both ways. This would also be a “service hour neutral” implementation, which the goal of the TMP. 

[ConnorsCompShow]

WTMP survived council today. The lone no vote was from Klein. Otherwise, unanimous. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/winnipeg-transit-council-open-streets-active-transportation-1.6007124

Now the question is whether the province wants to play ball (yeah, right) and if the federal Liberal minority doesn't collapse by the time the province could be convinced to play ball.

[MMP15]

2 hours ago, ConnorsCompShow said:

WTMP survived council today. The lone no vote was from Klein. Otherwise, unanimous. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/winnipeg-transit-council-open-streets-active-transportation-1.6007124

Now the question is whether the province wants to play ball (yeah, right) and if the federal Liberal minority doesn't collapse by the time the province could be convinced to play ball.

Hopefully in the next week or two Transit updates their project page online with a timeline for the first phases of implementation.

Also a reminder that the on request service pilot will be starting relatively soon. Transit stated this would start in spring, so that means the pilot will start before the end of June (within the next 2 months). 

[Isaac Williams]

9 hours ago, MMP15 said:

so that means the pilot will start before the end of June (within the next 2 months). 

The Summer schedule is currently scheduled to start on June 20th, so maybe it'll start up then?

[ConnorsCompShow]

Here's a prime example of why the recommended EBRT alignment of continuing to use Nairn/Regent on-street is not just a horrible idea that doesn't actually solve problems, it's a complete joke: there's a car crash on Lagimodiere by Marion that has southbound traffic backed up pretty much to and sometimes past Regent, and the northbound side is a DCZ again through to Almey. That then has a knock-on effect of heavy and/or standstill traffic on Nairn which just a few minutes ago, stretches right over the overpass and goes to Watt, and at times goes all the way to Stadacona:

The knock-on effect it has? A whole crapload of red on the timetables, with some delays easily nearing 20 minutes or more.

And as you can see, Regent east of Peguis, despite the curb lane being closed from Rougeau onwards to Plessis right now, is still totally fine. If they went for a fully separated approach up to Regent/Peguis, I would be absolutely fine with it stopping there because fewer people really need or otherwise stand to benefit from anything beyond that. Even if you did stand to benefit minorly from going all the way to Transcona Blvd with a "RED ROSE Kildare" (really?), at best it's just a convenience by that point.

[wt_enthusiast_photos]

46 minutes ago, ConnorsCompShow said:

Here's a prime example of why the recommended EBRT alignment of continuing to use Nairn/Regent on-street is not just a horrible idea that doesn't actually solve problems, it's a complete joke: there's a car crash on Lagimodiere by Marion that has southbound traffic backed up pretty much to and sometimes past Regent, and the northbound side is a DCZ again through to Almey. That then has a knock-on effect of heavy and/or standstill traffic on Nairn which just a few minutes ago, stretches right over the overpass and goes to Watt, and at times goes all the way to Stadacona:

The knock-on effect it has? A whole crapload of red on the timetables, with some delays easily nearing 20 minutes or more.

And as you can see, Regent east of Peguis, despite the curb lane being closed from Rougeau onwards to Plessis right now, is still totally fine. If they went for a fully separated approach up to Regent/Peguis, I would be absolutely fine with it stopping there because fewer people really need or otherwise stand to benefit from anything beyond that. Even if you did stand to benefit minorly from going all the way to Transcona Blvd with a "RED ROSE Kildare" (really?), at best it's just a convenience by that point.

That red is cause alot of them were school charters that have been canceled. And they were all were hidding so the GPS was thinking it was late but I can confirm all were on time

[Isaac Williams]

6 minutes ago, bus is coming 1965 said:

That red is cause alot of them were school charters that have been canceled. And they were all were hidding so the GPS was thinking it was late but I can confirm all were on time

I can confirm first-hand, a lot of buses were really late on Nairn/Regent, because of slow-as-crap traffic/drivers.

[cslusarc]

Before even considering using Narin & Regent for on street non-segregated rapid transit, significant improvements need to be made to improve safety and traffic flow in that area.   We should ideally be looking to convert Regent & Lag plus Reenders & Lag both to grade separated interchages.   

[SirAndrew710]

Something I just noticed is that, as you can see by comparing the dash size, the 693 will remain a rush-hour-only route in the short term (seen at left), but will be converted to an all-day route in the long term (seen at right).

 

[MMP15]

36 minutes ago, SirAndrew710 said:

Something I just noticed is that, as you can see by comparing the dash size, the 693 will remain a rush-hour-only route in the short term (seen at left), but will be converted to an all-day route in the long term (seen at right).

 

Hm good catch. However, I’m more curious to see if/when the short term plan comes to fruition before I really think about the long term plan… it’s coming up on a month since the plan was passed by council and no updates since (not even something small like “we will start in the 4XX area of the city, stay tuned for more updates/engagement/specific routing in the next X weeks”. I guess they are still on their victory lap…

[SirAndrew710]

One page 3 of this document, there is a note that TMP implementation will begin in 2023.

[MMP15]

22 hours ago, SirAndrew710 said:

One page 3 of this document, there is a note that TMP implementation will begin in 2023.

The worrying part of that is that an election takes place in fall of 2022, so there's a chance the new administration will try to derail/water down the current plan. I'm not sure why they wouldn't aim to execute this in spring or summer of 2022.

[SirAndrew710]

1 hour ago, MMP15 said:

The worrying part of that is that an election takes place in fall of 2022, so there's a chance the new administration will try to derail/water down the current plan.

Especially worrying is that Kevin Klein - the only City Councillor who voted against the TMP - is said to be considering a run for mayor (the article on the Free Press’ website is paywalled, but if you have a library card, you can read the article here). If he wins, who knows what will happen?

[car4041]

On 7/13/2021 at 9:53 AM, MMP15 said:

The worrying part of that is that an election takes place in fall of 2022, so there's a chance the new administration will try to derail/water down the current plan. I'm not sure why they wouldn't aim to execute this in spring or summer of 2022.

Even if they did start in 2022, it's only the very beginning of the implementation, so a new mayor and council could still halt it.

It needs to be remembered that the master plan is a long-term vision document, to be used as a guide for more detailed planning.  There's no guarantee that what gets implemented will look the same as the master plan, no matter who the administration is.

[MMP15]

2 hours ago, car4041 said:

It needs to be remembered that the master plan is a long-term vision document, to be used as a guide for more detailed planning.  There's no guarantee that what gets implemented will look the same as the master plan, no matter who the administration is.

The short term route network is not meant to be stretched out and “long term”. It is merely meant to be the first step in the long term plan. And what gets implemented (if anything) may not be identical to the plan, but it will still follow the principles of the plan. 

[car4041]

5 hours ago, MMP15 said:

The short term route network is not meant to be stretched out and “long term”. It is merely meant to be the first step in the long term plan. And what gets implemented (if anything) may not be identical to the plan, but it will still follow the principles of the plan. 

Sure, but even the short-term plan is a guideline rather than a firm plan.  Lots of details remain to be pinned down, such as how exactly routes will loop around at their terminals, where stops will be placed, how Route J will make a left turn from Main to William, what to do with Route 30 that they show crossing the Arlington Bridge, etc.  The short-term plan is not something that can be immediately implemented.  So a 2023 timeline seems pretty reasonable.

[Isaac Williams]

23 minutes ago, car4041 said:

what to do with Route 30 that they show crossing the Arlington Bridge

If I'm not mistaken, the Arlington Bridge is supposed start getting replaced in the next few years or something like that. If the new bridge is not ready by the time that route gets implemented, which is pretty likely, it'll probably go around the same way as the current 71.